Append to daily note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a leading newline is added (from schema) but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, if authentication is needed, or any side effects (e.g., whether it creates the note if missing). For a write operation, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, informative sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides a typical use case. No wasted words or redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain behavior when the target note does not exist, whether appending is idempotent, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., get_daily_note). The description is minimal and leaves many questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (content has description, period has enum but no description). The description adds that the note is 'current' and that other periods are possible ('or weekly/etc.'), which clarifies the period parameter. For content, it repeats 'markdown' but adds no new detail beyond schema. Overall, it partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('append markdown') and the target resource ('current daily note', with parenthetical mention of weekly etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like append_to_note by specifying the period note context, and provides a concrete use case ('agent logs what it just did at the end of the day').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a common usage pattern (logging at end of day), which gives context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like append_to_note or create_note, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.